adelaideP&C
If it went to two divisions of 9, neither Middlesex nor Somerset would care a fig about the two points. It does seem farcical that the structure could be changed at this stage purely (it would seem) to make the two points inconsequential.

It is stretching credulity to argue that other teams would be hurt by their last matches having retrospectively become meaningless. Isn't that exactly what happened last year thanks to the retrospective relegation imposed on Durham? The only team "hurt" there was Durham. Kent claimed that they, rather than Hampshire, should have got the benefit but without the penalty there would have been no benefit to argue about, so they were in reality no worse off.

I disagree with your reference to the two points having "rightly" been lost. Or maybe it is the inference that is meant to be drawn with which I disagree. The initial deduction was totally bone-headed in my view. However, once made, and with the next round of matches having started, it quickly got to the point where it would have been wrong to reinstate them. You don't have to think the initial deduction was justified to think that the points should not be restored now.

Adelaide

Ade - the original decision to deduct points was wrong. I said that in my first post. The reason why those points had been ''rightly'' lost by the time your boys pitched up in Taunton was because your cricket managers had sat on their @#$%& and done nothing about the deduction by then. Proper action was needed as soon as the deduction was made. Unless the ECB change their own rules on relegation more than a week after the season has ended, Somerset will go down if Middlesex now have those two deducted points restored. That would be grossly unfair. Somerset believed they knew what they needed to achieve in their final game against you to beat the drop and had every right to know. The spectators at the game also deserved to know at the time if they were watching a battle for Division One survival or a meaningless encounter.

The Somerset v Middlesex match would have turned out not to have been a relegation decider if Hampshire had lost the next day. Would supporters have retrospectively felt deprived if the gut-wrenching tension (not that there was much of that, I fear) had turned out to have bee "meaningless"? I think not.

While a "nine and nine" move would be a bit different, in that it is not something that happened on the field, the retrospective impact on the Taunton match would be exactly the same, so why feel deprived, cheated or whatever?

I am not expecting, or particularly advocating, such an outcome but I can't see how Somerset or their supporters would be hurt in the slightest.

Creosote's illegal now, is't it? I've heard the expression somewhere before but can't pin it down - song lyric perhaps?

adelaidePeaches - I agree entirely that Somerset must not be relegated.
The Somerset v Middlesex match would have turned out not to have been a relegation decider if Hampshire had lost the next day. Would supporters have retrospectively felt deprived if the gut-wrenching tension (not that there was much of that, I fear) had turned out to have bee "meaningless"? I think not.

While a "nine and nine" move would be a bit different, in that it is not something that happened on the field, the retrospective impact on the Taunton match would be exactly the same, so why feel deprived, cheated or whatever?

I am not expecting, or particularly advocating, such an outcome but I can't see how Somerset or their supporters would be hurt in the slightest.

Creosote's illegal now, is't it? I've heard the expression somewhere before but can't pin it down - song lyric perhaps?

Adelaide

Ade - rightly or wrongly it comes across that Middlesex supporters are too conveniently overlooking what is most likely to happen to Somerset if Middlesex get their two points back. Unless the Fultonesque scenario becomes reality, Somerset will be relegated.

Going back to 9:9 would clearly suit Middlesex, wouldn't harm Somerset and would get the ECB off the hook for a dreadful decision in the first place. However, I feel it will cause other problems not too far down the line. I assume 3 teams would need to be relegated in 2018 to get things back to how they were at the start of the 2017 season. There was a lot of concern this season about 25% of teams being relegated but, if my assumption is right, that gets upped to 33% for next year. That seems a high price to pay - particularly for the poor saps who finish 7th out of 9 - just because your hierarchy were asleep at the wheel when the deduction was made. Once they failed to make a prompt and strong appeal, the howler and responsibility for it was theirs.

I didn't really mean spectators would feel ''retrospectively deprived'' if things were changed now but was trying to say once more that everything should have been decided before the match started. I do feel it's reasonable that spectators who have spent their own time and money in going to a match should know what is or isn't at stake.

I assume some of your members here talk to your hierarchy. What is being said? It seems a ridiculously slow and unsatisfactory situation.

And finally, you can blame Woody Guthrie - Deportees Song. To limit numbers, keep prices high and benefit from US government payments, farmers would cover all but the best fruits with creosote while some starved.

Thanks for explanation. Presumably said fruit can be got at Alice's Restaurant.

If 9:9 were to happen, it would surely have to be presented as either a permanent change or a stepping stone to yet another structure. A temporary fix to save Middlesex would be unacceptable for the reasons that you outline.

The ECB would be reluctant, I am sure, to do anything which suggested that the 8:10 structure only just implemented was a mistake. I can think of two possible supporting arguments, though neither are new, or at least not entirely new. The first is the relative amounts of negative cricket played in the two Divisions (even taking account of the perennial weakness of some of the Div 2 counties) and whether two down from eight is contributing to that. The second is more of an image thing, in that the 8:10 structure increases the chances of Div 2 cricket being played in large stadia. With the obsession with the forthcoming franchises, the ECB might not care that much about the level of CC cricket in cities and arguably they (and we) should not anyway, but I just throw it in as a thought. Having 10 in the top level would also increase the chances of seeing Div 1 cricket at any venue, including Taunton, so would not be discriminatory.

chunkyinargyllOne last time-
No one is talking about Somerset being relegated,

That is one scenario that definitely won't happen.

If you are planning to post again, either use my proper user name, or don't use it at all.

Sorry, I'm new here. I didn't know you were so keen on formality. I should have guessed. Is it ok if I post without wearing a tie?

As far as the regulations governing relegation are concerned, the two teams with the least points should go down. Therefore, if Middlesex get the two points back, Somerset automatically go into the drop zone. We know from the monkey business last season with Hants and Durham that things don't always work that way but I don't see any real evidence to say Somerset wouldn't be in peril.

I don't doubt that David Fulton commented on Sky Sports but I have no proper idea what he actually said and whether it was just his suggested solution to the mess or something with more substance than that. I've yet to meet or talk to anyone who saw Fulton's piece which only adds to the frustration. That doesn't invalidate what he said or may have said but equally it doesn't give Somerset a ''get out of jail card. Until the situation is clarified and confirmed by the ECB, neither Somerset or Middlesex can feel comfortable. Your boys though are clearly and imo deservedly in by far the most trouble given how the table reads now (ie the deduction applying).

If Middlesex get their two points back and if what Fulton reportedly said comes into being, then I accept that Somerset won't be relegated. However, there are some big 'ifs' there. It seems a monumental pretence to suggest Somerset have no chance of being adversely impacted by what Middlesex are trying to do after the event.

The people who should be getting the most stick about this are the high ups purporting to run your club. They should have appealed loud and clear at outset. It should be far too late to do so now. Why didn't they appeal strongly at the time? I don't understand that or why your supporters seem so weak in telling them. I assume from your user name that you personally are based in Plymouth or Scotland and so couldn't attend the end of season forum. However, plenty of others should have gone along to voice how let down they have been rather than to hobnob over cheese and wine.

adelaidePeaches
Thanks for explanation. Presumably said fruit can be got at Alice's Restaurant.

If 9:9 were to happen, it would surely have to be presented as either a permanent change or a stepping stone to yet another structure. A temporary fix to save Middlesex would be unacceptable for the reasons that you outline.

The ECB would be reluctant, I am sure, to do anything which suggested that the 8:10 structure only just implemented was a mistake. I can think of two possible supporting arguments, though neither are new, or at least not entirely new. The first is the relative amounts of negative cricket played in the two Divisions (even taking account of the perennial weakness of some of the Div 2 counties) and whether two down from eight is contributing to that. The second is more of an image thing, in that the 8:10 structure increases the chances of Div 2 cricket being played in large stadia. With the obsession with the forthcoming franchises, the ECB might not care that much about the level of CC cricket in cities and arguably they (and we) should not anyway, but I just throw it in as a thought. Having 10 in the top level would also increase the chances of seeing Div 1 cricket at any venue, including Taunton, so would not be discriminatory.

At the forum, Middlesex chief executive Richard Goatley sounded confident that ECB would give us a fair hearing, although I don’t think anyone feels certain whether our points deduction will be overturned. A lot of the comments made at the forum about Arrowgate were about why we struggle to control our over rate (2017 was the fourth successive season in which we lost points for this, while there must have been plenty of near-misses in that time considering the regularity with which the scoreboard shows a negative over rate) rather than about the deduction being unjust. Indeed, some attendees (and I think some posters on MTWD or social media) feel we deserved our deduction.

It would certainly cause a lot of resentment if we retain our division status, whether this be way of our deduction being overturned and Somerset going down instead, or there being a return to nine teams in each division. It is for this reason that I prefer the idea of us accepting our relegation.

It would be a surprise if there is a return to nine teams in each division, as ECB seem committed to a fixturelist in which everyone plays 14 matches, with the teams in division one playing everyone twice. If there is a return to nine teams, then everyone would play six opponents twice and two opponents once, so it could work, although I don’t think ECB have identified any need for this.

As there doesn’t seem to be much media coverage about our quest to have our points deduction overturned, it doesn’t sound like there is much reason for our supporters to feel hopeful of us retaining our division one status or for Somerset’s supporters to feel fearful of being relegated. However, there must be a decent chance we could get our points back considering the assurances allegedly made by the umpires.

For as long as Taunton is conducive to spin, Somerset's supporters and officials can enjoy at least of half of their matches without fear of their bowlers getting through their overs slowly!

Jonathan - all good and fair points. Although your comments about Somerset are as reassuring as possible, you recognise that nothing is certain and so Somerset cannot be said to be definitely out of the woods yet. That's different from what was stated by the poster in Argyll.

I appreciate your supporters' concerns about Middlesex regularly failing to bowl the necessary overs and why they should raise that with the Chief Executive at the forum. However, with regard to the current deduction, your position has been very considerably weakened by the lateness of your appeal. Was that raised as well? My impression is that your management are being given a very easy ride on this.

Finally, as well as Somerset supporters not having fear of their bowlers getting through their overs slowly, it's enjoyable to sit back and watch so many overs being bowled!

The points deduction only appeared in (presumably ECB-approved) tables the day of (or perhaps the day before) the next round of matches. It is quite possible that the club, like supporters, assumed that the tables published before that were correct, reinforced in the case of the club by what they had been told by the umpires. Or maybe they knew earlier than that. Whatever, the club clearly engaged in discussions with the ECB - which surely is a form of appeal. They were advised (by the ECB? by lawyers?) that as the Playing Conditions had been applied to the letter there was no further appeal possible, at least to the ECB. The club then reluctantly accepted that. Maybe they should not have done that but the argument that Middlesex and rival counties needed certainty before playing their next matches had some force even at that stage.

Goodness knows what, if anything, might be being discussed between MCCC and ECB now. But I think it is a little unfair for people to suggest that the county hierarchy were sitting on their hands.

I was amused by JG on the White Rose thread, who seems to think that Middlesex lost their last two matches. Of course Lancashire were beaten and the previous three matches, all heavily weather-affected, were drawn. Hard to imagine a White Rose man being unaware of a Red Rose defeat...

Ade - you do a good job in painting a sympathetic picture for what your hierarchy were faced with but I still believe the game was up and the two points were gone once they accepted the ECB's decision, even though they did so reluctantly. The acceptance was the mistake. Anything being raised and sought now should have been said to the ECB instead of the reluctant acceptance and at that time.

I'll ask you something now about the Arrowgate game if I may. It may not have merit but it's a genuine question. If there had been no arrow fired and the game had continued with Middlesex declaring and then using slow bowlers to rush through their overs and catch up the rate, is there any chance that Surrey (were Sanga and Roy playing?) could have knocked off the runs? If that might have been the case, you would have avoided the two point deduction but might not have got the five for a draw. Just wondering and a long way from being my point before the poster in Argyll seizes on it. Thanks.

I first became aware of Middlesex's points deduction on 6th September, which was six days after the end of the Surrey match, and was day two of the match v Yorkshire at Headingley. I noticed we had been deducted points when I attempted to work out the effect of the Yorkshire match being rain-affected. There were some other references on Facebook and Twitter about the deduction later that day, although I don’t think there were any earlier than my MTWD post, so I suppose 6th September was the day the deduction was administered.

I followed all but a couple of hours of day four of the Surrey match. After incurring a first innings deficit of 33, we closed day two on 15-0 in our second innings. As day three saw no play, it seemed doubtful that there would be enough time on day four to both get a big lead and bowl Surrey out, so my hope for the day was that we could bat out the day (or at least most of the day) to draw. At this point, I wasn’t aware that we needed to also bowl later in the day to sort out our over rate. I became even more desperate for us to bat out the day when the morning started with it being realised that Nick Compton couldn’t resume his innings due to a back spasm, and ended with us six wickets down. Thankfully, Compo later resumed his innings, while John Simpson and Ollie Rayner helped ensure we were not all out. Arrowgate happened when Surrey’s hopes of forcing a win were receding, although I felt relieved about the stoppage, as I had a fear that had the match continued and we lost our last two wickets quickly, then Surrey could have knocked off the runs. Jason Roy was playing, although Kumar Sangakkara wasn't. As I have said, I wasn’t aware at this point of our over rate, so I was glad we achieved my objective of batting until the (albeit premature) close. Of course, in retrospect, it would have been to our advantage had we been bowled out at some point in the afternoon, as although Surrey would have been left with a target they would have been expected to achieve, the arrival of the arrow would have probably prevented them from achieving their target, yet would have allowed us to sort out our over rate. In this scenario, Surrey would have instead surely been the ones up in arms about Arrowgate.

Jonathan WinskyOf course, in retrospect, it would have been to our advantage had we been bowled out at some point in the afternoon, as although Surrey would have been left with a target they would have been expected to achieve, the arrival of the arrow would have probably prevented them from achieving their target, yet would have allowed us to sort out our over rate. In this scenario, Surrey would have instead surely been the ones up in arms about Arrowgate.

Jonathan

Ingenious. But if we had been in serious danger of losing having been bowled out earlier we might well have been more worried about losing the draw points than the over rate deduction. I would imagine that if a Surrey victory had become almost inevitable that would have been the point at which the over rate suddenly accelerated. That point might not have been reached when the lunatic archer struck.

In all the exchanges on the Surrey board, I think only one Surrey supporter suggested there was even a chance of a Surrey win at the point the arrow came. However he spoilt his case by arguing at the same time that there might not have been enough time for Middlesex to sort out the over rate. Presumably some relativistic time effect at work if the two views on time left are not to be contradictory.

My impression is that both teams were happily colluding to get home. Borthwick had just come on, first ball went for four. I think the scenario at that point, quite likely for both teams, was - let Simmo get his century, declare, sort out the over rate quickly, have a beer...

It ended at 4.20 with Middlesex 181 ahead, and around 25 overs remaining (remember- official end time 6 pm, so, if Surrey were on target there would have been 32 overs left at 4 pm).

Deduct 2 overs for change of innings, plus Middlesex could still bat on. Even if dismissed with lead of 210, with Surrey needing runs in 17 overs, this was not a T20 (longer boundaries, no fielding restrictions) and, before any one asks, minus 2 can be corrected in 20 minutes or less, as has been demonstrated on many occasions (and not just by Middlesex)

By the way, I've just noticed David Fulton hosted the Middlesex awards on Friday, so clearly he must be talking to Middlesex folk, so that tends to suggest he had some sort of an idea when he said 9 teams per division is the likely compromise.

There was no immediate appeal because Middlesex were told on the day by the umpires that there would be no deduction. Whether the umpires were right to say that or not it is not surprising that the hierarchy were surprised to discover some days later that the points had been deducted

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net